Wrongful Termination Cases

KIMMELMAN v HEATHER DOWNS MANAGEMENT LIMITED Docket No. 277201. Submitted April 9, 2008, at Detroit. Decided April 15, 2008, at 9:00 a.m. Leave to appeal sought. David Kimmelman brought a common-law, wrongful-discharge action in the Monroe Circuit Court against Heather Downs Management Limited and Legacy Golf Course LLC. Before he was fired, the plaintiff had cooperated in a police investigation and criminal prosecution for sexual assault of a coworker by one of the defendants’ co-owners and had attended the co-owner’s sentencing hearing. The court, Michael W LaBeau, J., granted summary disposition in favor of the defendants, ruling that the plaintiffs exclusive remedy lay in the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA), MCL 15.361 et seq., but the plaintiff had failed to file his action within the 90-day statute of limitations for claims under the WPA. The court also denied a subsequent motion by the plaintiff for leave to file an amended complaint to allege that the sexual assault took place away from work. The plaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeals held: 1. The WPA, among other things, forbids an employer from discharging an employee because the employee was requested by a public body to participate in an investigation, hearing, or inquiry held by that public body, or a court action. The language of the WPA does not limit the act’s application to investigations involving employers. The plaintiffs claim, that the WPA does not apply to his claim because the investigation in which he participated and the court proceeding that he attended did not pertain to his actual employment, is without merit. 2. The additional allegation that the plaintiff sought to make in an amended complaint is immaterial, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the plaintiffs motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Affirmed. Statutes — Whistleblowers’ Protection Act — Investigations, Hearings, and Inquiries. The Whistleblowers’ Protection Act forbids an employer from discharging an employee because the employee was requested by a public body to participate in an investigation, hearing, or inquiry held by that public body, or a court action; this prohibition applies even where the investigation, hearing, or court action does not involve the employer (MCL 15.362). Charles W. Palmer for the plaintiff. Lyden, Liebenthal & Chappell, Ltd (by Erik G. Chappell), for the defendants. Before: JANSEN, P.J., and DONOFRIO and DAVIS, JJ. DAVIS, J. Plaintiff appeals as of right an order granting summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8), failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted, and denying his motion to amend the complaint. We affirm. A grant or denial of summary disposition is reviewed de novo on the basis of the entire record to determine if the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 118; 597 NW2d 817 (1999). A motion brought under MCR 2.116(C)(8) should be granted only where the complaint is so legally deficient that recovery would be impossible even if all well-pleaded facts were true and construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id. at 119. Only the pleadings may be considered when deciding a motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8). Rozwood, supra at 119-120. Because defendants moved for summary disposition in lieu of filing an answer, the only pleading in this case is the complaint. See MCR 2.110(A). We likewise review de novo questions of statutory construction, with the fundamental goal of giving effect to the intent of the Legislature. Weakland v Toledo Engineering Co, Inc, 467 Mich 344, 347; 656 NW2d 175 (2003), amended on other grounds 468 Mich 1216 (2003). The goal of statutoiy interpretation is to determine and give effect to the intent of the Legislature, with the presumption that unambiguous language should be enforced as written. Gladych v New Family Homes, Inc, 468 Mich 594, 597; 664 NW2d 705 (2003). If the language is unambiguous, “the proper role of a court is simply to apply the terms of the statute to the circumstances in a particular case.” Veenstra v Washtenaw Country Club, 466 Mich 155, 160; 645 NW2d 643 (2002), citing Turner v Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 448 Mich 22; 528 NW2d 681 (1995). Leave to amend a pleading “shall be freely given when justice so requires.” MCR 2.118(A)(2). “Leave to amend the pleadings should be freely granted to the nonprevailing party upon a grant of summary disposition unless the amendment would be futile or otherwise unjustified.” Lewandowski v Nuclear Mgt Co, LLC, 272 Mich App 120, 126-127; 724 NW2d 718 (2006). The trial court’s decision whether to grant leave to amend a pleading is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Id. Taking plaintiffs complaint as true, plaintiff was employed by defendants as a mechanic. One of defendants’ co-owners, Joseph Garverick, sexually assaulted one of plaintiffs coworkers; plaintiffs proposed amended complaint emphasizes that this assault took place away from work and after working hours. The coworker told plaintiff about the assault. Plaintiff agreed to give a statement to the Michigan State Police in their ensuing criminal investigation of Garverick, and plaintiff was subpoenaed as a witness at Garverick’s trial. Plaintiff was not required to testify because that case was resolved by entry of a plea. On September 21, 2006, plaintiff accompanied the coworker to Garverick’s sentencing. The next day, when plaintiff reported to work, his employment was terminated. Plaintiff filed the instant suit on January 10, 2007, alleging common-law wrongful discharge. Specifically, he alleged that he was terminated as retaliation for his cooperation with the criminal investigation and prosecution and his presence at the sentencing. Defendants argued all of the alleged bases for plaintiffs termination constitute protected activities under the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA), MCL 15.361 et seq. “The existence of the specific prohibition against retaliatory discharge in the WPA is determinative of the viability of a public policy claim.” Dudewicz v Norris-Schmid, Inc, 443 Mich 68, 79; 503 NW2d 645 (1993). Therefore, plaintiffs exclusive remedy would be under the WPA, and he would have no other “public policy” claim. Critically, the WPA provides 90 days in which to file suit, MCL 15.363(1), and plaintiff exceeded this window. The trial court granted summary disposition on that basis. Whether any of plaintiffs alleged bases for his termination fall outside the scope of the WPA is therefore the issue before us in this appeal. Plaintiff has not alleged in his complaint, nor has he alleged in his proposed amended complaint, that his employment was anything other than at-will. In the absence of any indications to the contrary, employment is rebuttably presumed to be at-will. Lytle v Malady (On Rehearing), 458 Mich 153, 163-164; 579 NW2d 906 (1998). Because plaintiff has not alleged anything that would tend to rebut this presumption, plaintiff must be considered an at-will employee on the basis of the pleadings. Consequently, his employment was terminable at any time and for any — or no — reason, unless that termination was contrary to public policy. Suchodolski v Michigan Consolidated Gas Co, 412 Mich 692, 695; 316 NW2d 710 (1982). “Public policy” proscribing termination of at-will employment is “most often” used in three situations: (1) “adverse treatment of employees who act in accordance with a statutory right or duty,” (2) an employee’s “failure or refusal to violate a law in the course of employment,” or (3) an “employee’s exercise of a right conferred by a well-established legislative enactment.” Suchodolski, supra at 695-696. Our Supreme Court’s enumeration of “public policies” that might forbid termination of at-will employees was not phrased as if it was an exhaustive list. However, as a general matter, “the proper exercise of the judicial power is to determine from objective legal sources what public policy is, and not to simply assert what such policy ought to be on the basis of the subjective views of individual judges.” Terrien v Zwit, 467 Mich 56, 66; 648 NW2d 602 (2002) (emphasis in original), citing Marbury v Madison, 5 US (1 Cranch) 137, 177; 2 L Ed 60 (1803). Consistently with this principle that the courts may only derive public policy from objective sources, our Supreme Court’s enumerated “public policies” in the context of wrongful termination all entail an employee exercising a right guaranteed by law, executing a duty required by law, or refraining from violating the law. Furthermore, where there exists a statute explicitly proscribing a particular adverse employment action, that statute is the exclusive remedy, and no other “public policy” claim for wrongful discharge can be maintained. Dudewicz, supra at 78-80. The Whistleblowers’ Protection Act provides as follows: An employer shall not discharge, threaten, or otherwise discriminate against an employee regarding the employee’s compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of employment because the employee, or a person acting on behalf of the employee, reports or is about to report, verbally or in writing, a violation or a suspected violation of a law or regulation or rule promulgated pursuant to law of this state, a political subdivision of this state, or the United States to a public body, unless the employee knows that the report is false, or because an employee is requested by a public body to participate in an investigation, hearing, or inquiry held by that public body, or a court action. [MCL 15.362.] It is not disputed that plaintiff did not report, nor was he about to report, any violation of law. It is also not disputed that the criminal investigation and court action did not technically involve plaintiffs employer, but rather the individual co-owner, in that person’s individual capacity, of the business entities that employed plaintiff. Plaintiffs proposed amended complaint states —and the parties have treated as presumed — that the subject of the investigation was not related to plaintiffs employer or employment. Nevertheless, the plain language of the statute is not limited to violations by employers. Dudewicz, supra at 77. In Dudewicz, our Supreme Court determined that the facts before it did not warrant “testing] the outer limits of this rather broad statute.” Id. The facts here do. Moreover, this Court must follow the unambiguous language of a statute, even if doing so would produce an absurd or irrational result. Our Supreme Court has explained that the courts must follow the plain and unambiguous language of a statute, even if doing so would produce an absurd or irrational result. People v McIntire, 461 Mich 147, 155-158 & n 2; 599 NW2d 102 (1999). The language in the WPA is unambiguous: an employee need only be requested by a public body to participate in an investigation, hearing, inquiry, or court action (or, under the first part of the statute, report or be about to report a violation of law). There is absolutely nothing, express or implied, in the plain wording of the statute that limits its applicability to violations of law by the employer or to investigations involving the employer. Plaintiffs argument that the WPA does not apply is that the investigation in which he participated and the court actions that he attended did not pertain to his actual employment. In support, plaintiff cites several cases in which this Court or our Supreme Court avoided addressing whether some connection to the employee’s employment was required by the WPA by concluding that there was, in fact, a connection to the employment. Dudewicz, supra at 77-78; Terzano v Wayne Co, 216 Mich App 522, 530-532; 549 NW2d 606 (1996); Trepanier v Nat’l Amusements, Inc, 250 Mich App 578, 586-588; 649 NW2d 754 (2002). But in all these cases the courts deemed it unnecessary to address the question directly, and thus they left it outstanding. Furthermore, although in the context of a report rather than a participation, our Supreme Court has observed that there may “[frequently” be “a close connection . . . between the reported violation and the employment setting,” but “no such limitation is found in the statute.” Dolan v Continental Airlines/Continental Express, 454 Mich 373, 381; 563 NW2d 23 (1997). Plaintiff alleges that his employment was terminated because he participated in a criminal investigation and court action. These activities are protected under the WPA, irrespective of whether the criminal investigation had any connection to his employer or to his employment. Plaintiff therefore alleges that he was terminated because of his participation in a protected activity under the WPA, so his exclusive remedy is a claim under the WPA. Pleadings in Michigan need only provide a statement of facts and allegations sufficient to advise the adverse party of the nature of the claims being brought, so a complaint need not explicitly refer to a statute to bring a claim under that statute. MCR 2.111(B)(1); Johnson v A & M Custom Built Homes of West Bloomfield, PC, 261 Mich App 719, 723; 683 NW2d 229 (2004). Plaintiffs claim is exclusively under the WPA, and because plaintiff did not meet the 90-day limitations period under MCL 15.363(1), the trial court properly granted summary disposition in defendant’s favor. Plaintiff additionally argues that his attendance at Garverick’s sentencing is not protected under the WPA. It appears that defendants conceded this point, although we are not bound by a party’s statement of law, or even the parties’ stipulations on a point of law. Rice v Ruddiman, 10 Mich 125 138 (1862); In re Finlay Estate, 430 Mich 590, 595-596; 424 NW2d 272 (1988). In any event, even if plaintiffs apparently gratuitous attendance at Garverick’s sentencing is not protected under the WPA, “public policy” must still be derived from an objective source. Plaintiff cites article 1, § 24 of the Michigan Constitution, which affords certain rights to crime victims, but plaintiff is not himself a crime victim, so he cannot have been exercising a right or executing a duty of his own. Plaintiff also cites MCL 750.122, the witness anti-intimidation statute, but because plaintiff did not attend the sentencing to provide information, he again could not have been exercising a right or executing a duty of his own. In summary, we simply have not found an objective source for a public policy that would make termination of an at-will employee legally wrongful under these circumstances. We finally note that the only significant distinction between plaintiffs complaint and plaintiffs proposed amended complaint is clarification of the fact that the assault was unrelated to plaintiffs employment. Because this fact is immaterial, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend on the basis of futility. Affirmed. The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of Heather Downs Management Limited pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(1), lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff conceded the correctness of this determination below, and this is not an issue on appeal. We do not suggest that an irrational result exists here. The Legislature intended the WPA to serve a vitally important and far-reaching goal: protection of the public by protecting all employees who have knowledge that is relevant to the protection of the public from some abuse or violation of law and who, for whatever reason, might fear that their employers would not wish them to divulge that information or otherwise participate in a public investigation. The Legislature clearly intended to maximize employees’ involvement by removing as much doubt as possible regarding whether those employees will face negative consequences. Moreover, the Legislature clearly did not intend the WPA to protect the public only from violations of law or abuses by employers, but rather from violations of law or abuses in general.

SILBERSTEIN v PRO-GOLF OF AMERICA, INC Docket No. 275195. Submitted February 12, 2008, at Detroit. Decided April 1, 2008, at 9:10 a.m. Leave to appeal sought. Ronald N. Silberstein brought an action in the Oakland Circuit Court against Pro-Golf of America, Inc., and others, seeking damages for wrongful discharge from employment in violation of public policy, tortious interference with an advantageous business relationship or expectancy, and conversion. Pro-Golf of America, Inc., filed a counterclaim against the plaintiff, alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary obligations, and fraud. The defendants moved for summary disposition on all the counts and the plaintiff moved for summary disposition of the counterclaim. The court, Rae Lee Chabot, J., granted summary disposition in favor of the plaintiff with regard to the claims of breach of contract and breach of fiduciary obligations, but denied summary disposition with regard to the fraud claim. The motion to dismiss the claim of wrongful termination was denied in part and the motion to dismiss the claim for conversion was granted. The court ruled that there was sufficient evidence to show that the defendants’ claim that the plaintiff was terminated because of a work force reduction was a pretext and the jury should consider the issue. The court also ruled that, because the after-acquired-evidence doctrine serves to limit damages, not to limit claims, the doctrine was not applicable with regard to the motion for summary disposition, but it could be considered in determining damages. The court’s order provided that summary disposition was granted in favor of the plaintiff regarding the counterclaim concerning purported referral fees or kickbacks. At trial, the court, Charles W. Simon, Jr., J., refused to admit evidence of alleged kickbacks and the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. The court entered a judgment for the plaintiff and denied the defendants’ subsequent motions for a new trial, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and remittitur. The defendants appealed. The Court of Appeals held,-. 1. The trial court properly instructed the jury that the plaintiff had the burden to prove that “one of the reasons” for his discharge was his refusal or failure to violate the law. He was not required to prove that his refusal or failure to violate the law was “the” exclusive reason for his discharge. 2. The trial court did not err in denying the defendants’ motion for a directed verdict. There was more than enough evidence presented to allow a reasonable juror to conclude that one of the reasons for the plaintiffs termination from employment was his refusal or failure to violate the law. 3. The trial court properly granted the plaintiffs motion for summary disposition with regard to the counterclaim for disgorgement because there was no genuine issue of material fact to support the claim. 4. The evidence of alleged kickbacks was properly excluded by the trial court on the basis that the evidence was not admissible. 5. The trial court properly exercised its discretion in declining to instruct the jury on after-acquired evidence. 6. The trial court properly denied the motion for remittitur. The evidence supported use of a discount rate of 4.5 percent in reducing the award of future damages to present cash value. There was sufficient evidence to support the award of damages for emotional injury. Affirmed. 1. Labor Relations — At-Will Employment — Discharge in Violation of Public Policy. A cause of action for wrongful discharge from at-will employment may be implied where the alleged reason for the discharge was a failure or refusal to violate a law in the course of employment; such failure or refusal need only be one of the reasons for the employee’s discharge and need not be the single reason for the discharge. 2. Damages — Future Damages — Present Cash Value. The civil jury instruction regarding reducing an award of future damages to its present cash value provides for the use of a five percent discount rate for such purposes; there is a rebuttable presumption in favor of the use of the five percent rate (M Civ JI 53.03). 3. Evidence — Emotional Damages. A plaintiff may testify regarding his or her own subjective feelings in order to place damages for emotional injury at issue. Morris & Doherty, P.C. (by E. Michael Morris), for the plaintiff. Jeffery D. Meek & Associates (by Jeffery D. Meek) for the defendants. Before: BECKERING, P.J., and SAWYER and FORT HOOD, JJ. PER CURIAM. In this action seeking damages for wrongful discharge, defendants appeal as of right the November 8, 2006, judgment entered in plaintiffs favor. Defendants also appeal the March 20, 2006, order granting, in part, plaintiffs motion for summary disposition and the December 6, 2006, order denying defendants’ motion for remittitur. We affirm. In August of 1999, defendant Ajay Sports, Inc. (Ajay), hired plaintiff Ronald Silberstein as its chief financial officer (CFO) and chief administrative officer (CAO). Thereafter, plaintiff became the CFO and CAO for defendants Pro-Golf International, Inc. (PGI), Pro-Golf, com, Inc. (PGC), and Pro-Golf of America, Inc. (PGOA). Ajay is the publicly traded parent company of PGI, PGC, and PGOA, a franchise company. Tom Itin is the chief executive officer (CEO) and chairman of the board for all four corporate defendants. Defendants terminated plaintiffs employment on January 5, 2004. Itin testified that Ajay and its subsidiary companies suffered financially from 1999 to 2003, and that the board of directors voted to discharge plaintiff in order to reduce costs. Plaintiff subsequently filed a complaint against defendants, alleging wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, tortious interference with an advantageous business relationship or expectancy, and conversion. Specifically, plaintiff alleged that Itin pressured him to “cook the books” by making accounting entries in violation of securities and franchise laws and regulations, and that defendants discharged him because of his refusal to do so. Defendants then filed a motion for summary disposition on all counts, arguing that plaintiffs termination did not fall under the public-policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine, that he was terminated because of poor performance and work force reductions, and that his termination was justified by after-acquired evidence of his own misconduct. Defendants alleged that during discovery, they learned that plaintiff stored pornography on his company computer, sexually harassed other employees, received “kickbacks,” and made “questionable” expense charges. In March of 2004, PGOA filed a counterclaim against plaintiff, alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary obligations, and fraud. The counterclaim alleged that plaintiff breached his confidentiality agreement with PGOA, that he received “kickbacks” from PGOA’s independent auditors, and that he used PGOA funds to reimburse himself for personal expenses. PGOA asked that plaintiff disgorge any benefits that he wrongfully retained. Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion for summary disposition with regard to PGOA’s counterclaim. Following a February 2006 hearing, Judge Rae Lee Chabot ruled on both parties’ motions for summary disposition. The court stated, in relevant part: All right, as to Plaintiffs motion for summary disposition as to the counter-claim, as to the breach of contract claim, the Court is granting that motion. [Defendants] have failed to present any evidence that Plaintiff breached the confidentiality agreement other than speculation. ... Regarding the breach of fiduciary duty claim, this is also dismissed, or granted, as Defendants have failed to provide sufficient evidence in support of this claim. However, the claim for fraud relating to the expense account, the summary disposition is denied. There is sufficient evidence that Plaintiff has charged certain items to the corporate Defendants during his employment and has failed to return those items after his termination, thus, that portion of the motion is denied. All right, regarding [Defendants’] motion for summary disposition. Again, I’m going to grant in part and deny in part. The motion to dismiss the claim for wrongful termination is denied as Plaintiff has alleged he was terminated due to his refusal to violate not only generally accepted accounting principles [GAAP], but also Sarbanes-Oxley, as well as SEC and FTC rules and regulations. However, to the extent that Plaintiff claims he was terminated for failure to disobey GAAP this claim is dismissed pursuant to [Suchodolski v Michigan Consolidated Gas Co, 412 Mich 692; 316 NW2d 710 (1982)]. All right, [Defendants’] assertion that Plaintiff was terminated due to a work force reduction is denied as sufficient [evidence] has been presented to indicate this was a pretext for the wrongful termination such that the issue should be decided by the ultimate fact finder. [Defendants’] assertion that Plaintiffs claim is barred by the After Acquired Evidence Doctrine is also denied. This doctrine serves to limit damages, not to limit claims. Thus, that portion of the motion is denied but it may be considered as to damages. Finally, regarding Plaintiffs claim for conversion, this claim is dismissed ... as Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege or to present substantively admissible evidence in support of this claim. I think I hit them all. The court issued its findings in an order dated March 20, 2006, reiterating that plaintiffs motion for summary disposition was granted with regard to PGOA’s counterclaim “concerning purported ‘referral fees’ and/or ‘kickbacks At trial, Judge Charles W Simon, Jr., refused to admit evidence of plaintiffs alleged “kickbacks” in light of the March 20, 2006, order. The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff, awarding him $700,000 in economic damages and $150,000 in damages for emotional injury. Thereafter, the trial court issued an amended judgment for $1,320,168.43, including the $850,000 jury verdict, attorney fees, costs, and interest. Defendants subsequently filed a motion for a new trial, judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), and remittitur. Following a December 6, 2006, hearing, the trial court denied the motion. I Defendants first argue that the trial court improperly instructed the jury on the public-policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine. We disagree. Claims of instructional error are generally reviewed de novo on appeal. Cox v Flint Bd of Hosp Managers, 467 Mich 1, 8; 651 NW2d 356 (2002). But, when the standard jury instructions do not adequately cover an area and a party requests a supplemental instruction, the trial court is obligated to give the instruction if it properly informs the jury of the applicable law and is supported by the evidence. Bouverette v Westinghouse Electric Corp, 245 Mich App 391, 401-402; 628 NW2d 86 (2001). The determination whether a supplemental instruction is applicable and accurate is within the trial court’s discretion. Stoddard v Manufacturers Nat’l Bank of Grand Rapids, 234 Mich App 140, 162; 593 NW2d 630 (1999). Generally, employment relationships are terminable at will, with or without cause, “at any time for any, or no, reason.” Suchodolski, supra at 695. There is, however, an exception to the at-will employment doctrine “based on the principle that some grounds for discharging an employee are so contrary to public policy as to be actionable.” Id. A cause of action for wrongful discharge may be implied “where the alleged reason for the discharge of the employee was the failure or refusal to violate a law in the course of employment.” Id. Defendants argue that this public-policy exception only applies where the reason for the employee’s discharge was the failure or refusal to violate the law and that the trial court improperly instructed the jury that defendants were liable for wrongful discharge if one of the reasons for plaintiffs discharge was the refusal or failure to violate the law. In so arguing, defendants rely on our Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Suchodolski, supra at 695, that “a cause of action for wrongful termination .. . has been found to be implied where the alleged reason for the discharge of the employee was the failure or refusal to violate a law... Id. (emphasis added). Suchodolski, however, sets forth the facts that a plaintiff must allege to bring a cause of action for discharge in violation of public policy. Contrary to defendants’ argument, Suchodolski does not address a plaintiffs burden of proof on a claim of discharge in violation of public police. In Pratt v Brown Machine Co, 855 F2d 1225 (CA 6, 1988), the plaintiffs brought a claim for public-policy discharge, relying in part on our Supreme Court’s decision in Suchodolski. Pratt, supra at 1227, 1236. In Pratt, the district court instructed the jury that the plaintiffs were required to prove that the employee’s refusal to violate the law “ ‘was a determinative factor in the [employer’s] decision to terminate the employment relationship.’ ” Id. at 1236 (emphasis added). On appeal, the court determined that this was a proper instruction on the parties’ relative burdens of proof. Id. at 1238. Defendants additionally argue that the trial court erred in basing its jury instructions on the instructions for other types of employment actions. But, as plaintiff correctly asserts, courts of this state have recognized that public-policy claims are analogous to claims made under § 2 of the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA), MCL 15.362, and that the WPA is analogous to antiretaliation provisions of other employment-discrimination statutes. In fact, restrictions on an employer’s ability to terminate an at-will employment agreement are most often found in explicit legislation, such as the WPA and § 701 of the Civil Rights Act (CRA), MCL 37.2701. Suchodolski, supra at 695. See also Dudewicz v Norris Schmid, Inc, 443 Mich 68, 79-80; 503 NW2d 645 (1993), overruled in part on other grounds Brown v Detroit Mayor, 478 Mich 589 (2007). The model civil jury instruction for WPA claims states, in part: [The] protected activity must be one of the motives or reasons defendant [discharged / or / threatened / or / discriminated against] the plaintiff. Protected activity does not have to be the only reason, or even the main reason, but it does have to be one of the reasons that made a difference in defendant’s decision to [discharge / or / threaten / or / discriminate against] the plaintiff. [M Civ JI 107.03 (original emphasis omitted, new emphasis added).] The model jury instruction for employment-discrimination claims states, in part: Your verdict will be for the plaintiff if you find that defendant [discharged / failed to hire / failed to promote / failed to train / harassed / [other]] the plaintiff, and that [religion / race / color / national origin / age / sex / height / weight / marital status] was one of the motives or reasons which made a difference in determining to [discharge / fail to hire / fail to promote / fail to train / harass / [other]] the plaintiff [M Civ JI 105.04 (original emphasis omitted, new emphasis added).] It is apparent that employment claims analogous to the claim at issue do not require the plaintiff to show that the protected trait or activity is the exclusive reason for discharge. If plaintiffs bringing a claim of discharge in violation of public policy were required to meet such a high burden of proof, as defendants assert, employers could avoid liability simply by raising other, contributing reasons for discharge. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court properly instructed the jury with regard to plaintiffs burden of proof on his claim of wrongful discharge. II Next, defendants argue that the trial court erred in denying their motion for a directed verdict. We disagree. A trial court’s decision on a motion for a directed verdict is reviewed de novo on appeal. Sniecinski v Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan, 469 Mich 124, 131; 666 NW2d 186 (2003). We review all the evidence presented up to the time of the motion in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party to determine whether a question of fact existed. Id., Zantel Marketing Agency v Whitesell Corp, 265 Mich App 559, 568; 696 NW2d 735 (2005). “If reasonable jurors could honestly have reached different conclusions, this Court may not substitute its judgment for that of the jury.” Wiley v Henry Ford Cottage Hosp, 257 Mich App 488, 491; 668 NW2d 402 (2003). In challenging the trial court’s denial of their motion for a directed verdict, defendants again rely on our Supreme Court’s decision in Suchodolski. In that case, the plaintiff alleged that he was discharged for attempting to report his employer’s improper accounting practices. Suchodolski, supra at 694. The plaintiff relied on two sources to establish that he was discharged in violation of public policy: the internal code of ethics of the Institute of Internal Auditors and the Public Service Commission’s regulation of the accounting systems of public utilities. Id. at 696. The Suchodolski Court found that neither source was sufficient to establish public policy and that the plaintiffs allegations involved nothing more than “a corporate management dispute” with regard to internal accounting practices. Id. In this case, however, plaintiff alleged that Itin pressured him to violate laws and regulations specifically designed to protect the public, i.e., the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Securities Exchange Act, and the Code of Federal Regulations. Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires that all publicly traded companies such as Ajay file financial information with the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC), and that all such information be true and fairly representative of the financial condition of the company. PL 107-204, § 302, 116 Stat 745, 15 USC 7241; see 15 USC 78(m). Likewise, the rules and regulations promulgated by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) require franchisors such as PGOA to provide accurate written financial disclosures to potential franchisees. 16 CFR 436. At trial, plaintiff testified that Itin pressured him to “cook the books” with regard to three accounting transactions: the “Vero Beach Sale,” “Franchise Fees,” and the “MBNA Advance.” According to plaintiff, the proceeds from the sale of the Vero Beach property should have been recorded on the books of PGI, the company that sold the property. But, Itin insisted that the proceeds be recorded on PGOA’s books instead. Kathy Dix, a certified public accountant (CPA) and former controller for defendants, testified that she was present when Itin instructed plaintiff to make the Vero Beach entry incorrectly. In December of 2003, defendants received two franchise fees and an advance from MBNA Corporation. Several CPAs testified that the franchise fees could not be recorded as income before PGOA performed its obligations to the franchisees and that the MBNA advance could not be recorded as income. Nonetheless, Itin instructed plaintiff to record the franchise fees and the MBNA advance as income for 2003. Joseph White, the former president of PGOA and PGI, testified that Itin put pressure on plaintiff to record the franchise fees and the MBNA advance in violation of FTC and SEC regulations. According to White’s testimony, plaintiffs refusal to record the MBNA advance as income was, in his opinion, “the straw that broke the camel’s back.” Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, defendants cannot establish that no question of fact existed regarding the reason for plaintiffs termination. There was more than enough evidence presented at trial for a reasonable juror to conclude that one of the reasons for plaintiffs termination was refusal or failure to violate the law. Therefore, we conclude that the trial court properly denied defendants’ motion for a directed verdict. III Defendants also argue t